]]>By: Geoffrey Normanhttp://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/05/08/green-mountain-senate-punishes-utility-for-producing-too-much-green-energy/#comment-27995
Fri, 18 May 2007 15:07:26 +0000http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/05/08/green-mountain-senate-punishes-utility-for-producing-too-much-green-energy/#comment-27995The story of the political class and its relationship to Vermont Yankee (the state’s nuclear plant) is wonderfully baroque. They see it, on the one hand, a monster and on the other, a cash cow. We have been all over this story at our web site. Go to the “energy” category.
]]>By: Kevinhttp://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/05/08/green-mountain-senate-punishes-utility-for-producing-too-much-green-energy/#comment-27275
Thu, 10 May 2007 03:29:46 +0000http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/05/08/green-mountain-senate-punishes-utility-for-producing-too-much-green-energy/#comment-27275tarran,

I think that with modern design tools, understanding of physics, materials and manufacturing processes, it is quite feasible to produce nuclear power plants that do pay for their own liability insurance. In fact some of the designs I saw in the late 1990â€™s struck me as absolutely elegant. They were quite idiot proof, and I wouldnâ€™t be adverse to having one close by.

The problem is, all the nuclear power plants we have are based on the old 1950s and 1960s technology since the United States has not built one since Three Mile Island. These old nuclear power plants are going to have be replaced eventually for public safety’s sake.

Also, aren’t the Chinese working on their own idiot proof reactors?

]]>By: tarranhttp://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/05/08/green-mountain-senate-punishes-utility-for-producing-too-much-green-energy/#comment-27272
Thu, 10 May 2007 02:47:45 +0000http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/05/08/green-mountain-senate-punishes-utility-for-producing-too-much-green-energy/#comment-27272As an ex-Navy-Nuke, I know a little bit about the nuclear power industry. I honestly think it is incredibly uneconomical.

The deal-killer is the lack of liability insurance. In the 1950’s and 1960’s insurers demanded such high premiums for covering nuclear power plants that the plants had no prospect for turning a profit.

Since they could not cover the costs of their insurance, the industry convinced the Federal Government to force the American tax-payer to pay for the liability insurance at gunpoint.

In a truly free market, if you cannot get liability insurance, you either abandon the project or try to operate despite the risk.

I think that with modern design tools, understanding of physics, materials and manufacturing processes, it is quite feasible to produce nuclear power plants that do pay for their own liability insurance. In fact some of the designs I saw in the late 1990’s struck me as absolutely elegant. They were quite idiot proof, and I wouldn’t be adverse to having one close by.

I am not a big fan of “renewable” energy. When you get right down to it. Renewable energy tends to be either the product of solar energy reaching the ground, siphoning gravitational energy from the Earth Moon system, or tapping the heat produced by radioactive decay in the Earth’s interior.

I don’t think “renewable energy” would flourish in a free market anywhere, currently they are dependent on state violence for their success.

I may be too young to remember the Nuclear Freeze movement so I won’t debate you on that. But how exactly are Germany and Denmark better off? (Good thing you didn’t include France since they use so much nuclear power.)

Let me examine a few “renewable energy” methods.

1. Solar – How much CO2 do we put out making those fancy light panels to capture sunlight?
2. Wind – Talk about wasting energy. Each windmill must be made of something. Plastic, whoops, that isn’t good. Metal must be mined. Wood cuts down trees.
3. Water – That kills fish when it heats the water.

So we are back to the idea, what method creates less waste for the least cost and most energy? What method creates the largest amount of energy with the least environmental impact? I would say nuclear, but that is with the information I have read. Perhaps you could explain why it is so much worse than any other option.

By the way, does this also mean you are angry with Iran and North Korea for building reactors? Just wondering.

]]>By: Christina Macphersonhttp://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/05/08/green-mountain-senate-punishes-utility-for-producing-too-much-green-energy/#comment-27266
Thu, 10 May 2007 00:54:55 +0000http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/05/08/green-mountain-senate-punishes-utility-for-producing-too-much-green-energy/#comment-27266Are Americans crazy? or are they crazy? Well, Australians are, too – the way we all put up with clearly stupid government policies. The US federal government pays for nuclear waste management. That means the tax-payer pays.
We’re all being told that nuclear power is “clean”, and “no greenhouse gases”. What about the whole fuel cycle – uranium mining, milling, transport, building of reactors, building of waste repositories, digging for underground disposal, building of great concrete covers for “decommissioned” reactors – plenty of C02 emissions in all that. Bush’s USA and loyal sycophant Australia – we are both being conned ABout this dangerous, dirty, expensive nuclear industry.
Meanwhile Germany, Denmark etc are making a packet out of selling truly renewable energy technologies!
]]>